(Opinions, Assumptions and Presumptions are not facts in relation to evidence. Ligertwood, A.L.C. [1988] Australian Evidence p.284 Bates.F. (1985) Principles of Evidence p.46 Rules of Evidence)

KingsCalendar Academic Newsletter

Archaeology and the Bible No. 2

Academic Opinion

Friday 13th - February 2004

Preface

In my last newsletter I discussed two issues:

1. Religious Compartmentalism

– and -

2. Academic Opinion, specifically in relation to the Battle of Qarqar 853 BCEIn this issue, I want to discuss the issue of Academic 'arrogance'.

Academic Arrogance

It is a strong thing to publicly state that Academics are arrogant, but what can you call the attitude of 'professional or scientific' people, whose refusal to look at an issue is based solely on their 'personal' reactions to and prejudices against people and their ideas. Chapter Fifteen of the 'King's Calendar' entitled: Polemical Introduction to Moses, discusses the issues of Academic (prejudiced) Opinion, and offers a number of comments from a variety of writers, as well as examples of Academic attempts to 'push their own prejudices' (sometimes despite the evidence).

But in this instance, I would like to refer to a more publicly available article in the Yahoo Ancient Chronology Forum on the subject of 'The Osorkon Jar' [From: "Vern Crisler" Tue Feb 3, 2004 Samaria, part 8 THE OSORKON JAR]

The issue to which I wish to draw attention, is that Academics can sometimes refuse to examine an issue, simply because of their own threatened or offended pride. I Quote:

Immanuel Velikovsky was apparently the first to call attention to the Harvard excavation report on the relation between the Ostraca House and the Osorkon House, but he did so in the context of questioning the very science of archaeology itself, which is why archaeologists did not take him seriously at the time (cf. Ramses II and His Times, p. 246). However, the basic problem he describes must be taken seriously.

Note here the call is for the actual problem to be taken seriously, and not as one might say, 'to be like a baby thrown out with the bathwater.' In other words, the problem was not addressed, because the speaker who raised the issue was not appreciated.

Now the 'King's Calendar' has not been on the Internet long enough to draw much attention (ranked for the first time by Google Mid-November 2003). To date, only Jim Davila of has made any comment at all, but it is to be expected that once academics can get passed the idea that I am a crackpot, to seriously looking at the results of this research, that many will not wish to give it any merit, for it will in all probability close the door of opportunity for them to continue publishing their 'own' fanciful theories. (Mr. Davila's comments.)

And herein lies the rub. Whilst the 'King's Calendar' is a 'theory', it is in fact 'a scientific theory' and can therefore be subjected to scientific testing, under which, should it fail, it would be proven beyond doubt to be false. By way of example, let me draw your attention to some points mentioned in another article at Yahoo Ancient Chronology forum. In this article

King Jehoash of Israel is assigned the year 798BCE as his commencement year, reigning until 783/782BCE.

He is assigned a co-regency with his son Jeroboam II, commencing in 793 BCE.

The 'King's Calendar' also assigns Jeroboam the year 793 BCE as his commencement year, thereafter reigning for forty-one 'artificial' years until 756 BCE.

The 'King's Calendar' uses all the Biblical Chronological Data as it appears in Scripture, and for some reason, unlike the rest of the academic world, finds no need to INVENT co-regencies, or to alter the chronological figures, in order to fit all of the reigns into the time frame historically available.

Whilst the 'King's Calendar' relies solely upon the figures provided in the Scriptures, the secular approach is to simply accept that Biblical writers did not know what they were talking about, and couldn't get anything right. This is not so.

Take for example, a statement made in the above mentioned article concerning the Earthquake that happened in the days of Uzziah, which according to Josephus, occurred at the same time that Uzziah became ill with leprosy and was forced to turn over the government to his son Jotham. It is speculated in the article that Jotham must therefore have become regent around 750BCE.

The 'King's Calendar', in it's determination of the commencement year for Jotham's governorship (749BCE), relies on a Scripture that everyone else has maintained is erroneous. 2 Kings 15:30 maintains that Hoshea killed Pekah of Israel during the 20th year of Jotham, but as anyone will tell you, this is not possible, because it conflicts with all of the other chronological references. But in fact it does not, and, as demonstrated from the Yahoo Ancient Chronology article, this scripture paints a picture consistent with secular academic chronological opinion on the matter.

The real point I wish to draw from all of this, is that we too often just accept what 'The Professionals' tell us, without ever forcing them to make a clear distinction between 'proof' and 'opinion'. (I'm sure George Bush would appreciate this difference at the moment.)

Every professional is entitled to express opinions, to make reasonable guesses, to draw reasonable inferences, but these must always be clearly labeled as such and not passed off as 'gospel'.

The 'King's Calendar' does not ASK anyone to blindly accept what it proposes, but invites all who are courageous enough to embark on the journey for truth, TO TEST what it proposes, and prove it to be right or wrong.

The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.

When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]

General formula for Biblical Data conversion:

The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:

'X' times 364 equals 'Y' days

'Y' days divided by 336 equals 'Z' artificial years.

Values are:

'X' = any given number of 'real/solar' years

364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar

'Y' = number of days calculated

336 = number of days in an artificial year

'Z' = artificial years = 1.083'X' and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.

To reverse the process by hand:

'Z' years times 336 equals 'Y' divided by 364 equals the Number of 'X' years converted.

To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:

The Principle of Linear Causality

The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE

Because it is a mathematical system, the King's Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which, is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is effected and must also change. It's like a 'domino effect'. Chronological references cannot be 'forced' to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or 'compressed' as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.

If any King's Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King's Calendar successfully defends its' position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King's Calendar is 'proven' wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.

Because of this, the King's Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel's history is unique, in that its' methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its' chronological predictions are able to be 'proved' or 'disproved'.

Dates for Nabopolassar & Nebuchadrezzar Kings of Babylon - and - Josiah and Jehoiakim Kings of Judah as per (Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London) Using Babylonian Chronicles B.M. 22047 (p.65) and BM 21946 (p.67) But with a one (1) year adjustment for the Reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar.

R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.

He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.